COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MASON CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CI CASCIO ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a MCDONALD'S OF MAYSVILLE
|
|
- Beatrice Boone
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY MASON CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-CI LINDA HAWN, PLAINTIFF VS. PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL CASCIO ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a MCDONALD'S OF MAYSVILLE DEFENDANT ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Comes the Plaintiff, Linda Hawn, by counsel, and for her Motion for a New Trial, pursuant to CR 59.01, states as follows: I. Civil Rule Basis for New Trial CR states: A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues for any of the following causes: (a) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or prevailing party, or an order of the court, or abuse of discretion, by which the party was prevented from having a fair trial. (h) Errors of law occurring at the trial and objected to by the party under the provisions of these rules. CR 59.01, emphasis added. For the reasons outlined below, the Plaintiff firmly believes a new trial is warranted, and respectfully requests such an Order from this Court. II. Medical conditions and related treatment are not relevant as to the credibility of a witness without the benefit of expert medical testimony. During its direct examination at trial of employee/witness Crystal Boyd, whose testimony and credibility were extremely material in this case, the Defendant elicited testimony from its employee that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and had undergone related treatment 1 MOT : of
2 including radiation and chemotherapy. Counsel for the Plaintiff made a timely objection to this testimony, and stated he was aware of no physician or expert listed on the Defendant s witness list who could offer any admissible opinion as to the effect of breast cancer and/or related treatments on the memory of Ms. Boyd. Defense Counsel Thompson Direct Exam: Q: Cystal, I understand you are going through some medical treatment. Can you tell the jury what you re going through? Plaintiff Counsel Wheeler: Objection, Judge. I don t know what the relevance is. I mean, I know we had to call her out of order, but. Defense Counsel Thompson: They ve beat up on her memory. They ve impeached her three times. She s undergoing radiation treatment for chemotherapy. At the time of her deposition, she was undergoing chemotherapy. This is extremely relevant. They ve been - they ve tried to impeach her and attack her credibility. Plaintiff s Counsel Wheeler: Judge, I don t I guess I m confused. Where is the medical testimony that that relates I mean, I m not saying that it doesn t and I m sympathetic to anybody going through that but I just don t know where the foundation is for it. Is there a doctor that s going to come in here and testify that radiation therapy makes people lose their memory? TR 10:09:26 AM to 10:10:22 AM Counsel for the defense made no response to the stated objection regarding lack of proper medical foundation for the McDonald s employee to offer any opinion as to the relationship between the witness s alleged medical treatment and memory. After seven seconds of silence and no response from the Defendant (TR 10:10:15 AM 10:10:22), the Court, sua sponte, overruled the Plaintiff s objection and explained it would allow the testimony due to personal knowledge of the subject: Court: I don t know that I will require a physician to have to come in for that. I m aware of a lot of people that have had chemo and radiation and it does affect them. If you if you do bring this out, I would plan to tell the jury that they re not to consider that for any sympathy purposes, its only for matters of memory and recollection. I will allow 2 MOT : of
3 you to ask it but again if you do I ll give a brief admonishment to the jury its not to be used for sympathy. TR 10:10:22 AM to 10:10:55 AM The objection being overruled, Ms. Boyd was asked about her medical diagnosis and treatment, but was never asked how, or even if, her medical condition or treatment impacted her memory or recollection: Defense Counsel Thompson Direct Exam: Q: Cystal, can you tell the jury what medical treatment you re undergoing at this time? Witness Boyd: I have stage four breast cancer, I just finished my chemo, and now I m starting my radiation. Q. You have been shown your deposition testimony in this case several times and the date of that deposition was September 24, At that time, um, were you undergoing any medical treatment? Witness Boyd: Yes. Q. And what treatment was that? Witness Boyd: Chemotherapy. Q. Okay. And if your deposition was taken on September 24, 2018, how long would that have been after the fall that occurred on September 16, 2016? Witness Boyd: I m not for sure. Q. Would you agree 2016 to 2018, that s two years? Witness Boyd: Yes. TR 10:10:59 AM to 10:11:47 AM Without the Defendant attempting to offer evidence that Ms. Boyd s illness or treatment had an impact on her memory, the Court offered an admonition regarding the lay witness medical evidence, stating it was to be used not for sympathy, but to address memory or lapse of memory: 3 MOT : of
4 Court: Ladies and gentleman, the purpose of this testimony, and you re not to consider it for any sympathy reasons on behalf of the witness, although we certainly all have sympathy for that. Its only brought up to to address any memory or lapse in memory or so. It s not meant to illicit sympathy. TR 10:11:47 AM to 10:12:11 AM The Defendant continued with its direct examination of Ms. Boyd, concluding at TR 10:39:03, without ever asking the witness if her illness or treatment affected her memory at any point in time. The only grounds cited by the Defendant for inclusion of Ms. Boyd s medical diagnosis and treatment in response to the Plaintiff s objection of relevancy was the impact of same on the witness s memory. Setting aside for a moment the obvious lack of proper foundation for a McDonald s employee to offer such an opinion, the only evidence which would have made Ms. Boyd s illness or treatment relevant was her testimony that it had an impact on her memory. The Defendant merely offered Ms. Boyd s alleged medical diagnosis and related treatment, making no attempt to link same to any impact on the witness s memory. Such testimony is clearly irrelevant and inadmissible, even by measure of the Defendant s response to the Plaintiff s objection, and obviously carried significant sympathetic and prejudicial impact. There is absolutely no legal, factual or evidentiary basis for the inclusion of Ms. Boyd s testimony regarding her medical diagnosis or related treatment, especially without any testimony or evidence that it somehow impacted her memory. The only mention of any issues with Ms. Boyd s memory came from the Court, during its admonition, that the purpose of the testimony was to address any lapse in Ms. Boyd s memory. This admonition, similar to the Court expressing personal knowledge as to the impact cancer treatment has on memory from experience with other individuals, without the inclusion of any proof on the topic, constitutes the Court taking judicial notice. Kentucky s highest Court has 4 MOT : of
5 previously held that in the absence of medical testimony on such a subject, a Court cannot make medical findings without assuming an expert medical proficiency of its own. Kelly Contracting Co. v. Robinson, 377 S.W.2d 892, 894 (Ky. 1964). The Kelly Court held: In the absence of medical testimony that the physical stress of Robinson's work did or probably did cause, contribute to or precipitate his coronary occlusion, a court cannot find it so without assuming an expert medical proficiency of its own. It may be that Robinson's claim inherently was as valid as those in the Terry and Grimes cases, but the difference is in the witnesses. Neither the board nor the courts can use the testimony from Terry and Grimes in this case, and the relationship between physical activity and coronary occlusion is not so clearly established that we could take judicial notice that if a man has an occlusion while he is engaged in manual labor, or immediately afterward, the exertion is probably a causative factor. That must come from the mouth of a qualified member of the medical profession before it can be found as a fact in a court of law. Id., emphasis added. Even if evidence of Ms. Boyd s alleged medical issues and treatment was somehow relevant, such evidence cannot properly be offered through a lay witness pursuant to KRE 702 and relevant caselaw, and is further inadmissible under KRE 403. KRE 702 states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: (1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. There was no proof offered by the Defendant to suggest Ms. Boyd was qualified to testify, to any degree to proof, (1) that she had been diagnosed with cancer or (2) that her medical condition and/or relevant treatment had any impact on her memory. As the Defendant cited in their Objections to Deposition of Dr. Moskal, any testimony regarding medical conditions and/or 5 MOT : of
6 treatment must be rendered within a reasonable degree of medical probability. Andrew v. Begley, 203 S.W.3d 165, 170 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). Brown-Foreman Corp. v. Upchurch, 127 S.W.3d 615, 621 (Ky. 2004), emphasis added. The question of the quality of mind is one peculiarly directed to the medical profession. Murphy v. Lester, 280 Ky. 51, 132 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Ky. 1939), citing McCutcheon v. Bichon, 267 Ky. 694, 103 S.W.2d 76 (Ky. 1937). Commonwealth v. Huber, 711 S.W.2d 490, (Ky. 1986) is particularly on point, as the Kentucky Supreme Court held the following: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the witness to be cross-examined about her prior mental problems. The prior mental treatment of a witness is not relevant as to the credibility of that witness unless it can be demonstrated that there was a mental deficiency on the part of the witness, either at the time of the testimony or at the time of the matter being testified about. The mere fact that a particular witness has been treated for any kind of psychiatric problem in the past is of no significance in the impeachment of that witness unless it can be shown that the psychiatric problems relate in some way to the credibility of the witness. The avowal testimony shows that the witness suffered from manic depression, but without the benefit of expert medical testimony at the time of the trial that this illness somehow affected the ability to recall or caused her to fantasize events, it cannot be said that the severe changes of mood would necessarily affect her credibility. The authorities cited by Huber are distinguishable from this case. In Wagner v. Commonwealth, Ky., 581 S.W.2d 352 (1979), the prosecuting witness was receiving shock treatments which affected her memory and the court ruled that such evidence was relevant and competent because it tended to impeach her credibility. In Mosley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 420 S.W.2d 679 (1967), the alleged victim was under current treatment for schizophrenia, and her psychiatrist testified by avowal that one of the manifestations of this disease in the alleged victim was sexual fantasies. It was held that this expert testimony was relevant and competent and should have been admitted to impeach the credibility of the alleged victim. In contrast no expert medical testimony was offered in this case to connect the past episodes of manic depression with any challenge to her credibility. 6 MOT : of
7 The Plaintiff had no prior knowledge of this witness s alleged significant medical condition (no medical proof was provided), and only learned of it in the course of the trial while the witness was on the stand. Without any medical foundation to support the witness s position, the Plaintiff had no ability to counteract the lay witness testimony with a medical expert of its own. Interestingly, during her deposition the witness expressed no problem with her memory as to the date of the Plaintiff s fall: Q. And is that the door that Ms. Hawn entered? A. No. Q. Okay. And you are sure about that? A. Yes. Pg. 24 Q. Okay. And your testimony is that the floors hadn't been mopped yet; correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Are you sure about that? A. Yes. Pg. 45 Q. Don't know the last time you inspected it? A. Oh, when I came in was the last time. Q. Okay. What about the last time you cleaned it? A. It wasn't dirty. Q. The last time you mopped it? A. Not that day, no. Q. Okay. When is the last time that you mopped that area all through those tables? When is the last time you mopped that area? A. I hadn't at all that day. Q. You hadn't at all that day? A. No. Q. Had you swept that area? 7 MOT : of
8 A. Yes. Q. But you hadn't mopped it? A. Right. Q. And you are sure about that? A. Yes. Pg While the excerpts from Ms. Boyd s deposition above are merely a few instances where she clearly remembers the day of Ms. Hawn s fall, and goes so far as to state she is sure about her testimony, there was no indication at the time of her deposition, contrary to her trial testimony, that she had any memory problems. Ms. Boyd s trial testimony as to why she contradicts her previous sworn testimony, taken without any medical proof to provide adequate support, was a complete surprise as it had not been previously disclosed, and was further irrelevant, inadmissible and highly prejudicial. Furthermore, the Defendant s multiple pretrial filings mention absolutely nothing about opinion testimony regarding a connection of breast cancer, related treatments and memory issues. On the contrary, prior to trial, the Plaintiff was barred from offering into evidence for the jury s consideration multiple felony convictions for forgery and robbery of Crystal Boyd. The Court, by way of its January 17 th, 2019 Order, made note that Ms. Boyd is an employee of Defendant whose action in cleaning/mopping the floor may be key to liability herein. The Court further noted Ms. Boyd claims she had not mopped the area in question and was placing her credibility at issue assuming she continues to deny mopping at the location of the fall. In granting the Defendant s motion in limine, the Court held that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the probative value of the 14 and 18 year old convictions substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. This same standard and analysis was unfairly disregarded when it came time to evaluate 8 MOT : of
9 the testimony elicited by the Defendant, first offered on day two of trial, that Ms. Boyd underwent cancer treatments which purportedly impacted her memory. Importantly, each of Ms. Boyd s prior criminal convictions, which the Court found to be more indicative of untruthfulness/dishonesty than many other crimes, could have been proven by certified records of the Mason Circuit Court, or by way of judicial notice as the Court was the prosecuting Commonwealth Attorney at the time of each of the proffered convictions. While this evidence was excluded despite irrefutable evidence and ample authority for its inclusion being provided by the Plaintiff, the lay witness medical testimony offered by the Defendant on day two of trial was admitted despite having no valid legal basis whatsoever, in direct contradiction of KRE 702 and the ample precedent cited above, including precedent relied upon by the Defendant in its own deposition objections. After the credibility of Ms. Boyd was properly attacked by the Plaintiff using inconsistent statements made during her deposition, the Defendant was improperly permitted to rehabilitate the credibility of its employee with irrelevant, highly prejudicial testimony of a significant illness which undoubtedly weighed heavy upon the jury. The Plaintiff and her counsel are sympathetic for anyone dealing with such a terrible medical condition, but without proper evidentiary support the testimony of Ms. Boyd s alleged medical condition alone should not have been submitted to the jury for consideration. The Court s January 18, 2019 Order excluding Ms. Boyd s criminal history included a perhaps prophetic holding: Ms. Boyd has a significant interest in the outcome of the case since her job performance here could have effect on this or future employment, depending on whether a jury determines her actions relating to her testimony contribute to a verdict against her employer. Even with the Court s admonition that Ms. Boyd s illness was not to be considered for any sympathy purposes, the jurors would have similarly been concerned about the impact a verdict 9 MOT : of
10 against Ms. Boyd s employer may have on her employment, and thus the impact a verdict may have upon her ability to treat for her significant alleged condition. The real prejudice to the Plaintiff far outweighs the probative value of Ms. Boyd s lay testimony regarding her condition and the Court taking judicial notice of the impact such a condition has on her memory, as precedent cited above conclusively shows neither are probative of any fact of consequence. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests an appropriate Order from the Court and that a new trial be granted. NOTICE All parties please take notice that the foregoing motion will be brought on for hearing before the Mason Circuit Court at Maysville, Kentucky on the 22 nd day of February, 2019 at the hour of 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Respectfully submitted, COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF /s/ Andrew K. Wheeler Andrew K. Wheeler Martin, Wheeler & Vincent, PSC 431 Sixteenth Street / P.O. Box 2528 Ashland, KY P: (606) / F: (606) awheeler@martinvincentlaw.com Hon. Michael Walker Burnside Law, LLC th Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington, WV Ph: (681) / Fax: (681) michael@burnsidelaw.com 10 MOT : of
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing has been mailed/ ed to: Hon. Lauren Thompson Hon. Jessica B. Droste 163 East Main Street/ Suite 130 Lexington, KY lthompson@ppoalaw.com jdroste@ppoalaw.com This 7 th day of February, /s/ Andrew K. Wheeler Andrew K. Wheeler MOT : of
RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor. v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
NO. 14-CI-000143 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION NINE (9) HONORABLE JUDITH McDONALD-BURKMAN RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor PLAINTIFF v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
More informationQualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)
Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C. 16506 FM 529, Suite 115 Houston,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.
[Cite as State v. Hruby, 2003-Ohio-746.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 81303 STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND CRAIG HRUBY : OPINION Defendant-Appellee
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2017; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2014-CA-001017-MR WILLIE PALMER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE FRED A. STINE,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT 8 TH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-CI-3699
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT 8 TH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-CI-3699 JAMES M. WELLS PLAINTIFF vs. PLAINTIFF S MEMORANDUM CONTRA DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL COLUMBIA GAS OF KENTUCKY,
More informationIN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS NO KA COA CHARLIE RICARDO GRANT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MOTION FOR REHEARING
E-Filed Document Apr 25 2016 18:56:08 2013-KA-00614-COA Pages: 11 IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2013-KA- 00614-COA CHARLIE RICARDO GRANT APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE MOTION FOR
More informationRAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor. NORTON HOSPITALS, INC. D/B/A KOSAIR CHILDREN S HOSPITAL, et al.
NO. 14-CI-000143 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION NINE (9) HONORABLE JUDITH McDONALD-BURKMAN RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor PLAINTIFF vs. PLAINTIFF S TRIAL MEMORANDUM
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationCase: 5:09-cv KSF-REW Doc #: 51 Filed: 12/16/10 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 2224
Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 51 Filed: 12/16/10 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 2224 EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON C. MARTIN GASKELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-244-KSF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 20, 2004 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 20, 2004 Session BRENDA J. SNEED v. THOMAS G. STOVALL, M.D., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 57955 T.D. Karen R.
More informationSri McCam ri Q. August 16, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Sri McCam ri Q ae ga I Se 9 al McCambrid J e Sin g er &Mahone Y V Illinois I Michigan I Missouri I New Jersey I New York I Pennsylvania I 'Texas www.smsm.com Jennifer L. Budner Direct (212) 651.7415 jbudnernsmsm.com
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2012-0663, State of New Hampshire v. Jeffrey Gray, the court on December 7, 2017, issued the following order: The defendant, Jeffrey Gray, appeals his
More informationTRUSTEE S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY ROBERT BLECKER
Pg 1 of 12 Baker & Hostetler LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated
More informationCase 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case :0-cr-00-EDL Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN Chief, Criminal Division WENDY THOMAS (NYBN 0 Special Assistant United States
More informationRESPONDENT MOTHER'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO The People of the State of Colorado in the Interest of Children: Petitioner: And Concerning:, Respondents COURT USE ONLY Attorney for Respondent Mother Douglas
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationCommonwealth v. Schulze, 389 Mass. 735, 452 N.E.2d 216 (1983)
Western New England Law Review Volume 6 6 (1983-1984) Issue 1 Article 11 1-1-1983 Commonwealth v. Schulze, 389 Mass. 735, 452 N.E.2d 216 (1983) Robin L. Oaks Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview
More informationRule 605. Competency of judge as witness. NC General Statutes - Chapter 8C Article 6 1
Article 6. Witnesses. Rule 601. General rule of competency; disqualification of witness. (a) General rule. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. (b) Disqualification
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. Appellants, Case Nos. 5D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT MARIE LYNN HARRISON AND DEBORAH HARRISON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationCase 2:03-cv DGC Document 141 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 32
Exhibit A to the Motion to Exclude Testimony of Phillip Esplin Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 141 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 32 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 3 4 Cheryl Allred,
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL
Present: All the Justices JONATHAN R. DANDRIDGE v. Record No. 031457 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 9, 2011; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000356-MR BENJAMIN DRUMMOND APPELLANT APPEAL FROM TODD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE STEVE ALAN
More informationKeith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
More informationSTATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32548 ) DONALD WILLIAM LANGFORD, ) Filed: June 26, 2014 ) Defendant-Appellant.
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32548 ) DONALD WILLIAM LANGFORD, ) Filed: June 26, 2014 ) Defendant-Appellant. ) AFFIRMED APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TANEY COUNTY Honorable
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : Criminal No. 99-0389-01,02 (RWR) v. : : RAFAEL MEJIA, : HOMES VALENCIA-RIOS, : Defendants. : GOVERNMENT S MOTION TO
More informationTHE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE EXPERT WITNESSES DIVIDER 6 Professor Michael Johnson OBJECTIVES: After this session, you will be able to: 1. Distinguish
More informationPlaintiff 's Proposed Jury Instructions
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 19952002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 142000 Plaintiff 's Proposed Jury Instructions Terry H. Gilbert Attorney for Sheppard Estate George H. Carr Attorney
More informationCase 1:17-cr KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Case 1:17-cr-00350-KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 Post to docket. GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 6/11/18 Hon. Katherine B. Forrest I. INTRODUCTION
More informationDISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.
DISTRICT COURT EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 885 E. Chambers Road P.O. Box 597 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Plaintiff: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO. Defendant: KOBE BEAN BRYANT. σ COURT USE ONLY σ Case Number: 03
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
1 1 Innocence Legal Team 00 S. Main Street, Suite Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: -000 Attorney for Defendant SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No. CALIFORNIA, ) ) POINTS
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2013 v No. 310647 Oakland Circuit Court STEVEN EDWIN WOODWARD, LC No. 2011-238688-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 13-cr HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
2:13-cr-20772-GAD-DRG Doc # 159 Filed 02/13/15 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1551 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 13-cr-20772
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD
STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In Re: Glenn Robinson, Esq. PRP File No. 2013-172 Disciplinary Counsel s Motion in Limine to Admit Statements by Pamela Binette Which Are Contained in
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Belle, 2012-Ohio-3808.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97652 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES BELLE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-15-171 Opinion Delivered February 4, 2016 STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLANT/ CROSS-APPELLEE V. BRANDON E. LACY APPELLEE/ CROSS-APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT
More informationMeredith, Graeff, Arthur,
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Civil No.: 413502 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1818 September Term, 2016 TRACY BROWN-RUBY v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Meredith, Graeff,
More informationCase 1:05-cr RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
More informationEMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE
EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE Recognized Objections I. Authority RULE OBJECTION PAGE 001/002 Outside the Scope of the Ordinance 3 II. Rules of Form RULE OBJECTION PAGE RULE OBJECTION PAGE 003 Leading 3 004
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.
PlainSite Legal Document Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv-01252 Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al Document 2163 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2012 v No. 301700 Huron Circuit Court THOMAS LEE O NEIL, LC No. 10-004861-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 01662
[Cite as State v. Hess, 2007-Ohio-4099.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 21646 v. : T.C. NO. 2005 CR 01662 GLENN A. HESS : (Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111 ; ARCAP 28 ; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationEVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.
EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS Laurie Vahey, Esq. KINDS OF EVIDENCE Testimonial Including depositions Make sure you comply with CPLR requirements Experts Real Documentary Demonstrative Visual aid
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationWhy? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading
Why? Test Specific Knowledge Course Coverage Test Critical Reading Objective Grading Part of a Continuum MBE Essay PT Memorize law Critical reading Identify relevant facts Marshal facts Communication skills
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Spoon, 2012-Ohio-4052.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97742 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LEROY SPOON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cr-000-vap Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 JOHN NEIL McNICHOLAS, ESQ. STATE BAR #0 McNicholas Law Office Palos Verdes Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 0 (0) -00 (0) -- FAX john@mcnicholaslawoffice.com
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY] [PLAINTIFF], ) CASE NO. ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN [DEFENDANT], ) LIMINE ) Defendant. ) MOTIONS Plaintiff moves
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811
Case: 1:13-cv-01851 Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BASSIL ABDELAL, Plaintiff, v. No. 13 C 1851 CITY
More informationNo. 29, 433. THE STATE OF TEXAS, ) IN THE 13th DISTRICT ) COURT Plaintiff, ) ) NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS v. ) ) GWENDOLYN XXX, ) ) Defendant.
No. 29, 433 THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE 13th DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS v. GWENDOLYN XXX, Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS1 Defendant, Gwendolyn XXX, hereby moves
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 11, 2003 v No. 244518 Wayne Circuit Court KEVIN GRIMES, LC No. 01-008789 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCase 3:01-cv AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : :
Case 301-cv-02402-AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS Plaintiffs, v. SEA RAY BOATS, INC. Defendant. CASE
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
[Cite as Beard v. Meridia Huron Hosp., 2003-Ohio-5929.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 82541 CHARLENE BEARD, ADMRX., ETC. : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : AND
More informationCase 4:05-cv TSL-LRA Document Filed 12/06/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Case 4:05-cv-00033-TSL-LRA Document 195-1 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. My Name is: Name of Course: My Street address: Address:
Garden State CLE 2000 Hamilton Avenue Hamilton, New Jersey 08619 (609) 584-1924 Phone (609) 584-1920 - Fax Video Course Evaluation Form My Name is: Name of Course: My Street address: City: State: Zip Code:
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 17, 2004 BARBARA E. CUNNINGHAM
PRESENT: All the Justices JAMES EDWARD LOWE v. Record No. 032707 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 17, 2004 BARBARA E. CUNNINGHAM FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG J. Leyburn
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LINN COUNTY
Terri Wood, OSB #88332 Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 730 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 97402 541-484-4171 Attorney for IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LINN COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: OCTOBER 5, 2012; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2011-CA-000847-MR PEGGY FAULKNER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE THOMAS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL NO. 13-20772 Plaintiff, HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN v. RASMIEH YOUSEF ODEH, Defendant. / GOVERNMENT
More informationTHE BASICS OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE
THE BASICS OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN A CRIMINAL CASE Anthony Muhlenkamp Frank, Juengel & Radefeld, Attorneys at Law, PC 7710 Carondelet Ave., #350 Clayton, MO 63105 (314) 725-7777 amuhlenkamp@fjrdefense.com
More informationAdding a Little Bit of Hollywood to Your Trial
Adding a Little Bit of Hollywood to Your Trial Todd M. Raskin Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A. 34305 Solon Road 100 Franklin s Row Cleveland, OH 44139 (440) 248-7906 traskin@mrrlaw.com Todd M. Raskin
More informationEVIDENCE CALIFORNIA DISTINCTIONS Bar Exam Outline
EVIDENCE CALIFORNIA DISTINCTIONS Bar Exam Outline Law applying to both FRE & CEC is in black Law applying to FRE only is in blue Law applying to CEC only is in red WHEN TO APPLY CALIFORNIA LAW - only on
More informationCourt Filings 2000 Trial
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 1995-2002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 3-5-2000 Memorandum Opinion Regarding Admissibility of Character Evidence, Other Acts of Richard Eberling, Other Acts
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Kokoska v. Hartford et al Doc. 132 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PHILIP KOKOSKA Plaintiff, v. No. 3:12-cv-01111 (WIG) CITY OF HARTFORD, et al. Defendants. RULING ON DEFENDANTS MOTIONS
More informationEvidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.
Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq. This seminar focuses on the fundamentals of evidence in Florida including documentary evidence, demonstrative evidence, expert testimony, trial objectives and
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA MEGGAN SKRUTSKY, Plaintiff NO 08-02599 vs. CHARLES F. ULMER, JR., CIVIL ACTION Defendant vs. MATTHEW D. AIKEY, Additional Defendant MATTHEW D. AIKEY,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 15, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 15, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. THEODORE F. HOLDEN Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2003-B-904
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.: 08-CR-011-NW-C
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.: 08-CR-011-NW-C JOHNNY JAMES, JR. APPELLANT VS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Dec 1 2014 16:28:06 2013-KA-01785-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TREVOR HOSKINS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KA-01785-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More information1 of 1 DOCUMENT. MICHAEL A. ROSSI, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT MICHAEL A. ROSSI, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT NO. 2009-CA-001234-MR AND NO. 2009-CA-001285-MR COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY 2010
More informationJUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
JUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Stock Opening Instructions Introduction and General Instructions... 1 Summary of the Case... 2 Role of Judge, Jury and Lawyers...
More informationCase 1:14-md JMF Document 2018 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 2018 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON PARTIES MOTIONS IN LIMINE
MIMMS ET AL. v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Doc. 219 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ANTHONY MIMMS, M.D., MIMMS FUNCTIONAL REHABILITATION, P.C., v. Plaintiffs, CVS
More information" Jurisdiction & Venue
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT - DIVISION 2 CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CI- 4'i7/ PATRICIA GARDNER PLAINTIFF vs. COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GASTROENTEROLOGY CARE CENTER PSC DEFENDANT * * * *
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003
Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003 Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationResponse To Motions In Limine, Knuth v. City of Lincoln et al, Docket No. 3:11-cv (C.D. Ill. Jul 01, 2011)
The John Marshall Law School The John Marshall Institutional Repository Court Documents and Proposed Legislation 7-1-2011 Response To Motions In Limine, Knuth v. City of Lincoln et al, Docket No. 3:11-cv-03185
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Wyland, 2011-Ohio-455.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94463 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIAM WYLAND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 25, 2018 v No. 337657 Oakland Circuit Court JOSEPH JOHN LESNESKIE, LC
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August 30, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1828 ROBERT ROY MACOMBER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. August
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -VS- : AND : MICHAEL WILLIAMSON : OPINION
[Cite as State v. Williamson, 2002-Ohio-6503.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 80982 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY : -VS- : AND : MICHAEL WILLIAMSON
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MATINNAZ CONSTRUCTION, INC., vs. Petitioner/Appellee, DIAMOND REGAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.: SC09-4786 L.T. Case No.: 1D07-4786/ 1D07-5580 Respondent/Appellant. / ON REVIEW
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (ADOPTED 9/4/2012) INDEX ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope... 1 Rule 102 Purpose and Construction... 1 ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE... 1 Rule 201
More informationEFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TIPS LAWRENCE J. WHITNEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TIPS LAWRENCE J. WHITNEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW I. GENERAL REMARKS A. Accountability (Advocate) 1. Just you 2. No one else is there for client - never do or say anything that goes
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GEORGE LEE BUTLER APPELLANT v. NO. 200S-KA-0883-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF I~APPEALS Erin E. Pridgen,
More informationOF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT. vs. ** CASE NO. 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO Appellee. **
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D., 2003 YAITE GONZALEZ-VALDES, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** CASE NO. 3D00-2972 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 98-6042
More informationTRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive
TRIAL OBJECTIONS Albert E. Durkin, Esq. Miroballi Durkin & Rudin LLC Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive Will the answer hurt your case? Protecting the record
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Attorney for Defendant IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,
More informationExamination, Cross-Examination, and Redirect Examination. Penny J. White May 2015
Examination, Cross-Examination, and Redirect Examination Penny J. White May 2015 I. Learning Objectives for this Session: Following this session, participants will be able to: 1. Exercise appropriate control
More informationReporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians
Reporting Animal Cruelty for Veterinarians By Claudine Wilkins and Jessica Rock, Founders of Animal Law Source BACKGROUND Due to increased prosecution of animal cruelty defendants, Veterinarians are being
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB
9708 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 040969XXXX MB THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,
More informationCircuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-K UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-K-16-059073 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2117 September Term, 2017 THOMAS DUANE JONES v. STATE OF MARYLAND Leahy, Shaw Geter,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 26, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 26, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHAEL RICARDO MARTIN Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2002-A-587
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Aug 21 2014 17:48:58 2014-KA-00188-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JEFFREY ALLEN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-00188-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015 v No. 317282 Jackson Circuit Court TODD DOUGLAS ROBINSON, LC No. 12-003652-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCircuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018
Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No.: 03-K-17-005202 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 201 September Term, 2018 KHEVYN ARCELLE SHARP v. STATE OF MARYLAND Fader C.J., Leahy,
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-4469 MARION LITTLE, Appellant, v. JOANN DAVIS, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Charles W. Dodson, Judge. December 14,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 16, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 16, 2008 Session I N RE G.T.B. Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Wilson County No. 5684 Barry Tatum, Judge No. M2008-00731-COA-R3-PT - Filed November
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00515-CR Charles Brown, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-09-302842,
More information